alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar Income Program 1984-1, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

- fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/  Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 15, 2003
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1032 Other Federal laws and regulations.

The State will comply with the provisions of other Federal laws and regulations that directly affect its responsibilities in carrying out the disability determination function; for example, Treasury Department regulations on letters of credit (31 CFR part 205).
#### The Dwelle-Kaiser Company, Respondent, v. H. P. Sickels Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 590

 604

 675

 670

 587

 589

 514

 459

 459

 416

 436

 521

 542

 541

 614

 654

 653

 707

 701

 679

 655

 566

 543

 636

 638

 742

 730

 765

 862

 836

 865

 162

 173

 172

 166

 161

 160

 161

 161

 164

 168

 167

 170

 174

 163

 174

 177

 190

 189

 171

 186

 190

 174

 174

 178

 184

 180

 187

 186

 187

 210

 198

 286

 292

 307

 316

 288

 289

 278

 263

 268

 269

 263

 275

 282

 291

 316

 337

 349

 362

 372

 381

 359

 326

 327

 329

 333

 342

 349

 376

 389

 408

 440

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 19, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### §§111, 112. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10418(a)(7), (8), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 507, 508

Section 111, act Feb. 2, 1903, ch. 349, §2, 32 Stat. 792; July 22, 1954, ch. 558, §33, 68 Stat. 510; Jan. 28, 1956, ch. 12, §2, 70 Stat. 5, related to regulations to prevent contagious diseases.

Section 112, act May 29, 1884, ch. 60, §4, 23 Stat. 32; Feb. 2, 1903, ch. 349, §1, 32 Stat. 791; Feb. 7, 1928, ch. 30, 45 Stat. 59, related to investigations as to pleuropneumonia and other diseases and regulations.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Act Feb. 2, 1903, ch. 349, 32 Stat. 791, classified to former sections 112 and 120 to 122 of this title, is popularly known as the Cattle Contagious Diseases Act of 1903.

Act May 29, 1884, ch. 60, 23 Stat. 31, classified to former sections 112, 113 to 114a–1, 115, 116, 117 to 120, and 130 of this title and section 391 of Title 7, Agriculture, is popularly known as the Animal Industry Act.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.330 Filing before the first month you meet the requirements for eligibility. If you file an application for SSI benefits before the first month you meet all the other requirements for eligibility, the application will remain in effect from the date it is filed until we make a final determination on your application, unless there is a hearing decision on your application. If there is a hearing decision, your application will remain in effect until the hearing decision is issued. ( a ) If you meet all the requirements for eligibility while your application is in effect, the earliest month for which we can pay you benefits is the month following the month that you first meet all the requirements.
( b ) If you first meet all the requirements for eligibility after the period for which your application was in effect, you must file a new application for benefits. In this case, we can pay you benefits only from the first day of the month following the month that you meet all the requirements based on the new application.
[64 FR 31973, June 15, 1999]
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4221 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restore National SMART 

Grants for a certain number of award years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2015 

Mr. CARNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restore 

National SMART Grants for a certain number of award 

years. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SMART Grant Reau5 thorization Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF SMART GRANTS. 

7 Section 401A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1070a–1) is amended— 

9 (1) by amending the section heading to read as 

10 follows: ‘‘NATIONAL SMART GRANTS’’; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4221 IH

1 (2) in subsection (b)— 

2 (A) by striking paragraph (1); and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and all that 

4 follows through ‘‘for the third’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘this section for the third’’; 

6 (3) in subsection (c)(3)— 

7 (A) by striking subparagraphs (A) and 

8 (B); 

9 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) 

10 through (E) as subparagraphs (A) through (C), 

11 respectively; 

12 (C) in subparagraph (A)(i), as so redesig13 nated— 

14 (i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub15 clause (I) and inserting ‘‘and’’; 

16 (ii) by striking ‘‘major in’’ and all 

17 that follows through ‘‘the physical’’ and in18 serting ‘‘major in the physical’’; and 

19 (iii) by striking subclause (II); and 

20 (D) in subparagraph (C)(i), as so redesig21 nated— 

22 (i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub23 clause (I) and inserting ‘‘and’’; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4221 IH

1 (ii) by striking ‘‘major in’’ and all 

2 that follows through ‘‘the physical’’ and in3 serting ‘‘major in the physical’’; and 

4 (iii) by striking subclause (II); 

5 (4) in subsection (d)(1)(A)— 

6 (A) by striking clauses (i) and (ii); 

7 (B) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) 

8 as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; 

9 (C) in clause (i), as so redesignated, by 

10 striking ‘‘subparagraph (C) or (D)’’ and insert11 ing ‘‘subparagraph (A) or (B)’’; and 

12 (D) in clause (ii), as so redesignated, by 

13 striking ‘‘(E)’’ and inserting ‘‘(C)’’; 

14 (5) by amending subsection (e)(1) to read as 

15 follows: 

16 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OF

17 FUNDS.—There are authorized to be appropriated, 

18 and there are appropriated, out of any money in the 

19 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the De20 partment of Education to carry out this section 

21 $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2017 and each of the 

22 5 succeeding fiscal years.’’; 

23 (6) by striking subsection (f); 

24 (7) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub25 section (f); and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 4221 IH

1 (8) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by 

2 striking ‘‘2010–2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2020–2021’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 11.1



              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

The following information sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net
investment income per share and the net increase in net assets per share
resulting from operations for the period July 25, 2005 (inception of operations)
through December 31, 2005:



  Numerator for net investment income per share:                    $  6,202,991

  Numerator for net increase in net assets per share:               $  6,444,368

  Denominator for basic and diluted weighted average shares:          35,366,589


  Basic and diluted net investment income per share:                $       0.17
  Basic and diluted net increase in net assets per share
     resulting from operations:                                     $       0.18
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 10, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40162 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SERGIO ARTURO ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-1379-1

-------------------- ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of Sergio Arturo Rosales. United States v. Rosales , No. 04-40162 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See De La Cruz-Gonzalez v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 1995 (2005). We requested andNo. 04-40162 -2- received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker
. Rosales argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines prohibited by Booker
. However, he identifies “no evidence in the record suggesting that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under an advisory guidelines system.” United States v. Taylor , 409 F.3d 675, 677 (5th Cir. 2005). Rosales concedes that he cannot make the necessary showing of plain error that is required by our precedent. Furthermore, he correctly acknowledges that this court has rejected the argument that a Booker error is a structural error or that such error is presumed to be prejudicial. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); see also United States v. Malveaux , 411 F.3d 558, 561 n.9 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 5297). He desires to preserve this argument for further review. Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we therefore reinstate our judgment affirming Rosales’s conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED.
# #

#

#

#

#

# #

##

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

503M7

504M209

504M198

503M8

504M293

504M220

504M211

503M7

504M292

504M132

504M208

504M212

503M201

51022

51028

51015

51085 51244

51178

51246

51037

51201

51036

51241

51050

51197 51017

51046

51104 51020

51047

51025

51038 51024

6S

22E

6S

23E

7S

22E

6S

21E

7S

23E

7S

21E

022

007

011

034

036

027

019

018

013

023

007

012

024

018

015

021

019

031

030

010

020

033

030

025

008

017

026

029

028

016

035

009

031 032

014

005 004 006

006

003

001

002

012

002

013

001

024

003

006

025

004

036

005 006

032

001

029

020

001

017

005

Old Corral

McLeod Flat

Cedar Valley

Willow Creek

Calvin Crest

Sivels Ranch

Soquel Meadow

Redwood Creek

Greys Mountain

Chilkoot Creek

Gooseberry Flat

Sivels Mountain

Bass Lake Vista

Graham Mountain

Paradise Springs

California Creek

Soquel Campground

Soquel Meadow Ranch

Cold Springs Meadow

Chilkoot Campground

Nelder Grove Campground

Greys Mountain Campground

05S007

06S010

06S008

06S090

06S040

06S038

06S013

06S042

06S011

06S036

06S006

06S010X

06S040X

MAD222

06S097

06S099

06S057

05S095

05S019

06S088

06S072

06S039

06S040XB

06S010XC

05S018

06S098

MAD632

07S082

07S520B

06S095

06S058X

06S002X

06S010R

06S011A

05S019B

06S018

06S057A

06S047Y

05S039

07S006

06S011X

06S040XA

07S019

05S007N

06S013B

06S070

06S038B

06S006G

06S028

06S038C

06S006F

06S026X

06S072Y

06S011C

06S008C

05S095YC

07S520

06S038A

06S090B

06S065

05S007R

06S010Y

05S007T

06S090E

06S013H

06S002XB

05S095Y

06S028B

06S010YB

06S032

06S088D

06S504

06S013G

06S047YA

05S007Z

06S013C

06S013Y

06S013F

06S008A

06S011B

06S038E

06S006C 06S010A

06S095A

06S011F

06S013E

06S012B

05S007TA

06S098B

06S010YA

06S002XA

06S039A

06S099B

06S097A

06S006A

06S040XAB

06S028A

06S090G

06S010B

008

005

Scale

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

4

Legend

Project Boundary

Private Property

# WIN Sites

Meadows

Grey's Mountain Ecological Restoration Project Map 12

Meadows and Watershed Improvement Needs Sites

Burt Stalter 11/2011

1:48,000
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00 305

- CR NO. 02

- 12

- 00 306

- CR NO. 02

- 12

- 00307

- CR

CHRISTOPHER KYLOUNCH PAYNES APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COU NTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Christopher Kylounch Paynes attempts to appeal following his
pleas of guilty in three cases, two for possession of more than one but less than

four grams of cocain e and the third for unlawful possessi on of a firearm.
Following the plea agreements, t he trial court sentenced Appellant to twelve

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

years’ incarceration in each case, each sentence to run concurrently with the

others.

The trial court ’ s certification s of Appellant’s right to appeal state in ea ch

case that this “is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal

. ”

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On Ju ly 13 , 2012, we notified Appellant that

th e s e appeal s could be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the
appeal s fi led a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal s

. Appellant
filed a pro se response that does not present grounds for continuing the appeal s

. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are clear that in a plea

- bargain
case, an appellant may appeal on ly those matters that were raised by written

motion filed and ruled on before trial o r after getting the trial court’ s permission to
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Because the trial court’s certification s reflect that Appellant has no right of a ppeal, we dismiss th e s e appeal s for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )

DELIVERED: August 16 , 2012
### §§1475b, 1475c. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, subdiv. A, title XIII, §1336(1), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–790

Section 1475b, act Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 36, title VIII, §807, as added Pub. L. 95–426, title II, §204(c), Oct. 7, 1978, 92 Stat. 974; amended Pub. L. 97–241, title III, §303(b), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 291, related to seal of the United States Information Agency.

Section 1475c, act Jan. 27, 1948, ch. 36, title VIII, §808, as added Pub. L. 97–241, title III, §304(e), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 293, provided for Acting Associate Director in the event of death, resignation, illness, or absence of Associate Director.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1999, see section 1301 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6531 of this title.
#### § 408.818 When does SVB entitlement terminate if your benefit payments have been in suspense for 12 consecutive months?

We will terminate your SVB entitlement following 12 consecutive months of benefit suspension for any reason beginning with the first month you were no longer entitled to SVB. We will count the 12-month suspension period from the start of the first month that you are no longer entitled to SVB (*see* § 408.802(a)). This termination is effective with the first day of the 13th month after the suspension began.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 8,355

 10,118

 9,639

 10,959

 10,882

 11,166

 8,999

 7,568

 6,313

 4,575

 3,767

 3,022

 3,828

 6,268

 6,021

 5,656

 3,634

 4,639

 3,322

 503

 432

 351

 307

 248

 231

 221

 194

 180

 169

 173

 168

 2,601

 3,057

 2,805

 3,494

 3,175

 3,345

 2,804

 1,937

 1,463

 1,054

 596

 497

 504

 666

 538

 385

 387

 277

 371

 288

 308

 210

 225

 195

 194

 175

 170

 160

 155

 159

 153

 4,976

 5,607

 5,754

 6,143

 6,794

 6,593

 5,376

 4,429

 3,550

 2,644

 1,825

 1,278

 1,468

 2,335

 2,093

 1,893

 1,008

 1,251

 783

 361

 354

 308

 268

 227

 209

 194

 181

 171

 163

 166

 160

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 6, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7582** 

ROBERT CY MANN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY , R espondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 000464

- JRS )

Submitted : June 30, 2011 Decided: August 5, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per cu riam opinion
. Robert Cy Mann, Appellant Pro Se. Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Cy Mann , a federal prisoner, a ppeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011 ) petition and denying reconsideration
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the distr ict
court. Mann v. Stansberry , No. 3:09

- cv - 00464

- JRS (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010) . We deny Mann’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1182 When we begin to count the income excluded under the plan. We will begin to count the earned and unearned income that would have been excluded under your plan in the month in which any of the following circumstances first exist: ( a ) You fail to follow the conditions of your plan;
( b ) You abandon your plan;
( c ) You complete the time schedule outlined in the plan; or
( d ) You reach your goal as outlined in the plan.
[45 FR 65547, Oct. 3, 1980, as amended at 50 FR 48579, Nov. 26, 1985]
#### § 220.104 Multiple impairments.

To determine whether the claimant's physical or mental impairment or impairments are of a sufficient medical severity that such impairment or impairments could be the basis of eligiblity under the law, the combined effect of all of the claimant's impairments are considered regardless of whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity. If a medically severe combination of impairments is found, it will be considered throughout the disability evaluation process. If a medically severe combination of impairments is not found, the claimant will be determined to be not disabled.
#### § 418.2250 What evidence will you need to support your request that we use a more recent tax year?

We will follow the rules in § 418.1250, except that any references in that section to regulations in subpart B of this part shall be treated as references to the corresponding regulation in this subpart.
(No. 4255

#### Harry C. Jewsbury, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 9, 1950.*

G. R. Schwarz, Attorney for Claimant.

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Delaney, J.

This complaint filed December 27, 1949, alleges that claimant, Harry C. Jewsbury, was injured by reason of an accident occurring on the 21st day of May, 1941, while claimant was engaged in operating á road grader which was being pulled by a State highway truck. The grader started suddenly, throwing claimant backward off of the grader to the gfound, injuring the back of the claimant. After receiving the injury on May 21, 1941, the claimant continued to work for the State Highway Department until he was forced to resign his position in June of 1948, when he was forced to undergo surgery for the correction of the back injury.

The record consists of the complaint, motion of respondent to dismiss, notice to call up motion to dismiss, claimant’s reply to respondent’s motion to dismiss.

It appears from the record that claimant has failed *205to comply with. Section 24 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of this State, which provides that no proceedings for compensation under the Act shall be maintained unless claim for compensation has been made within six months after the accident, and unless application for compensation is filed within one year after the date of the injury, where no compensation has been paid, or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, where any has been paid. Failure to file complaint within the one year period under Section 24 bars the right to file such application thereafter. The motion of the Attorney General to dismiss' is hereby allowed.

Complaint dismissed.
### §857. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–647, title XXIV, §2401(d), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4859

Section, Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §1822, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–51; Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6485, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4384; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXIV, §2401(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4859, related to interstate and foreign sale and transportation of drug paraphernalia.

Subsec. (a), which related to unlawful acts, was repealed.

Subsecs. (b) to (f) were redesignated as subsecs. (b) to (f) of section 422 of the Controlled Substances Act by section 2401(b) of Pub. L. 101–647 and transferred to section 863(b) to (f) of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §1823, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–52, which provided that subtitle O (§§1821–1823) of title I of Pub. L. 99–570, enacting this section and provisions set out as a note under section 801 of this title, was to become effective 90 days after Oct. 27, 1986, was repealed by Pub. L. 101–647, title XXIV, §2401(d), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4859.